Texas AG Arrests 35 Immigrants Under New 287(g) Statewide Authority

(TEXAS) The Texas Attorney General’s Office detained 35 immigrants in October under a new statewide partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), marking one of the first visible enforcement actions since a 287(g) agreement took effect on January 31, 2025. The deal gives the Texas AG’s staff authority—under ICE supervision—to question, arrest, process, and detain people for suspected immigration violations across the state. The office, led by Ken Paxton, says it intends to expand its role in immigration enforcement.

The 35 arrests, confirmed by the Attorney General’s Office, were carried out with ICE support and, according to the AG, in coordination with the administration of President Trump. In a public statement, Paxton said the office would “defend the American homeland by deporting the illegal aliens threatening to alter the fabric of our country,” underscoring a tougher posture on immigration enforcement that goes beyond traditional local cooperation models.

Unlike the common form of 287(g) agreement embedded in county jails or municipal police departments, this arrangement is the first to grant a state attorney general’s office statewide jurisdiction. That means the Texas AG—rather than only sheriffs or local police—can initiate immigration enforcement actions, so long as assigned personnel are trained by ICE and carry out federal functions under ICE’s direction.

Supporters argue the move closes gaps between state criminal investigations and federal deportation cases. Critics warn it blurs lines between civil immigration enforcement and state authority, raises oversight questions, and may reduce community trust. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the Texas model could become a template for other states that want a larger role in immigration enforcement, but any expansion would face legal and political tests.

Policy framework and operational scope

Under the agreement, AG personnel must complete ICE training and work under ICE supervision for all federal immigration tasks. Their scope includes:

• Questioning individuals about immigration status
• Arresting non-citizens suspected of unlawful presence
• Processing immigration violations
• Maintaining custody of detainees, with a prompt transfer to ICE-approved custody

Key operational features:

• The agreement remains in force unless either party terminates it, creating an open-ended framework for cooperation.
• While AG personnel can conduct interviews and arrests, ICE retains ultimate control over federal charging, detention placement, and removal proceedings.
• This structure mirrors other 287(g) partnerships, which deputize local officers to perform narrow immigration functions while preserving federal oversight.

For official program background, see the ICE 287(g) Program: https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g. The Texas AG’s arrangement builds on this framework, but its statewide reach is a notable departure from the usual county-jail or city-police implementations.

The October arrests are the first large, publicly reported action tied to this statewide agreement. The Attorney General’s Office did not release detailed case information—such as immigration status categories or pending federal charges—but emphasized the arrests were for alleged immigration violations, with detainees to be transferred into ICE custody. The AG framed the operation as part of a broader plan to step up immigration enforcement across Texas.

Community impact and oversight

The deal includes accountability measures meant to address misuse concerns:

• Complaint procedures through the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Division and ICE
• Ongoing training requirements
• Regular performance reviews with ICE monitoring compliance with federal standards

State officials say these safeguards help prevent civil rights violations and keep the focus on federal law.

Concerns and potential harms:

• Community groups and some local leaders worry the program will deter immigrants—including crime victims and witnesses—from speaking with investigators.
• Advocates fear that any contact with law enforcement could lead to referral to federal authorities, even when individuals are reporting crimes.
• Police chiefs in other 287(g) regions have previously cited a “chilling effect” on reporting.

Legal observers are also watching whether the Texas AG could use its immigration role to scrutinize nonprofit groups, school districts, or local governments that interact with immigrants. The agreement does not grant new authority to investigate those entities, but critics fear it could become a pretext to gather information that feeds immigration enforcement actions. Supporters counter that ICE supervision and internal controls reduce those risks.

The Texas agreement highlights a long-running debate: immigration law is federal, yet cooperation with state and local agencies has expanded over two decades through 287(g). Proponents say partnerships help identify people with deportable offenses and improve coordination. Opponents argue they pull local resources into federal work, risk profiling, and strain relations with immigrant communities.

Practical effects and legal-political dynamics

If AG personnel approach someone during a state-led operation, they must follow ICE training and rules. Important practical points:

• Those detained for suspected immigration violations should be transferred to ICE-approved custody promptly.
• Families and employers may see faster referrals from state investigations to federal removal proceedings.
• Defense attorneys and legal aid groups may need to adjust strategies when cases originate with the AG rather than local police.

Policy considerations:

1. Open-ended term: The agreement’s duration means political shifts in Washington and Austin could shape how aggressively it’s used.
2. Federal control: A future administration could scale up or scale down ICE’s supervision tempo, training scope, and deployment priorities.
3. State decisions: Staffing, case selection, and funding at the state level will determine how often the Texas AG activates its 287(g) authority.

While the AG’s Office celebrated the initial arrests as a proof of concept, civil rights organizations press for transparency. They want details on:

• How many people questioned were U.S. citizens or lawful residents
• The basis for each stop
• How complaint reviews will be handled

The agreement’s performance review provisions may provide some answers, but early rollout phases often set norms that can be difficult to change later.

What to expect next

For now, Texans can expect more joint operations as training cycles complete and teams gain experience. State officials say they’ll prioritize cases involving public safety risks and organized crime. Critics caution that broad street-level questioning could spill beyond those priorities, especially if performance metrics favor volume over severity.

Paxton’s rhetoric suggests the Texas AG will keep immigration enforcement at the forefront of his agenda. That stance aligns with broader national debates about how far states can assist ICE and who bears the cost when community trust erodes. As other states watch Texas test this 287(g) agreement, the legal, social, and practical outcomes will likely carry weight beyond Texas’s borders.